Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"additional" which acknowledges the commercial areas within the development node. In review of the policy, staff cannot support the premise that the refinement plan requires all commercial land to be developed in order to demonstrate "public need". Given the above evidence, staff recommend that the Planning Commission find that the applicant has made sufficient findings for a public need for revising the East Laurel Hill Refinement Plan map to designate the subject property as commercial. (2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: (a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan. (b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal. (c) New or amended community policies. (d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan. (e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted. The applicant states that there have been two significant changes since the 1982 amendment to The Laurel Hill Plan, as follows: 1. The 1999 Metro Plan amendments enacted in essence, a new policy of not locating residential development beneath high-voltage power lines. The referenced amended findings were added to the Metro Plan text in the Residential Land Supply and Demand section, page III-A-2, in December of 1999, and stated as follows: (See Exhibit B of Attachment A.) Findings #5. Undeveloped residential land is considered unbuildable and removed from the supply if it is within 230 KV powerline easements..." Staff concurs that this changed provision constitutes an "amended community policy" that would eliminate this land from inclusion in the residential land supply. This represents a change of circumstance since the 1982 adoption of the East Laurel Hill map amendments to the refinement plan, consistent with the above approval criteria. 2. The Eugene Code has been amended since the adoption of the Laurel Hill Plan to provide for an increase in residential density of up to 40percent. The applicant maintains that a proportional increase in commercial area is reasonable due to this shift in anticipated future residential development. Although this is a substantial change in circumstance since the adoption of the 1982 refinement plan amendment, the impact of this change has not been sufficiently quantified to serve as a justification for amending the map to change the designation of the subject site to commercial. 3. The applicant has submitted evidence regarding limitations on access to existing commercial sites that has been changed since the 1982 refinement plan amendments, and demonstrated the relationship to the need for the subject property to be designated commercial. (See IV-8 6